Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coy v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Licensing Bd. | 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 756 | 2005 Ohio 773 |
A veterinarian's license was revoked by the Ohio Veterinarian Medical Licensing Board and the vet challenged the revocation of his license. The trial court found the vet guilty of gross incompetence and he appealed claiming there was no definition of gross incompetence in the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court holding no specific definition was required. |
Case |
| Orangutana, Sandra s/ Habeas Corpus | Orangutana, Sandra s/ Habeas Corpus | This decision was decided on an appeal of the writ of habeas corpus brought on behalf of an orangutan named Sandra after it was denied in its first instance. Pablo Buompadre, President of the Association of Officials and Attorneys for the Rights of Animals (AFADA) brought a writ of habeas corpus against the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and the City Zoological Garden of Buenos Aires on behalf of the hybrid of two different orangutan species, Sandra. AFADA sought the immediate release and relocation of Sandra to the primate sanctuary of Sorocaba, in the State of Sao Paulo in Brazil. AFADA argued that Sandra had been deprived illegitimately and arbitrarily of her freedom by the authorities of the zoo, and that her mental and physical health was at the time deeply deteriorated, with imminent risk of death. For the first time, basic legal rights were granted to an animal. In this case, Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation ruled that animals are holders of basic rights. The Court stated that “from a dynamic and non-static legal interpretation, it is necessary to recognize [Sandra] an orangutan as a subject of rights, as non-human subjects (animals) are holders of rights, so it imposes her protection." | Case | |
| HI - Vehicle - § 291C-124. Obstruction to driver's view or driving mechanism | H R S § 291C-124 | HI ST § 291C-124 | This Hawaii law states that no person shall hold in his or her lap or allow to be in the driver's immediate area any animal that interferes with the "driver's control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle." | Statute |
| NJ - Fur - Unlawful Trapping (Article 2. Manner, Means and Times of Hunting) | NJSA 23:4-20 to 23:22.8 | NJ ST 23:4-20 to 23:22.8 | This set of New Jersey laws describes what constitutes "unlawful trapping." The section prohibits pole traps with a fine of $20 for each pole trap illegally used. Further, the law states that no person shall manufacture, sell, offer for sale, possess, import, transport or use an animal trap of the steel-jaw leghold type. A person using a steel-jaw leghold type animal trap shall be fined not less than $50.00 nor more than $250.00 for a first offense; not less than $250.00 nor more than $500.00 for a second offense; not less than $500.00 nor more than $2,500.00 for a third or subsequent offense. | Statute |
| Martinez v. State | 48 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. App. 2001). |
A jury may infer a culpable mental state ("intentionally and knowingly") from the circumstances surrounding the offense of cruelty to animals. |
Case | |
| Hyland v. Borras | 719 A.2d 662 (N.J.Super.A.D., 1998) |
Plaintiff Heather Hyland brought this action for damages after defendants' dog, an American bulldog, trespassed onto plaintiff's property and attacked her ten year old shih tzu, causing serious injuries to the dog. Defendants appeal the award of "repair costs" ($2,500) in excess of the dog's market value or "replacement cost" ($500). In upholding the award, the court distinguished companion animals from other personal property, finding that market value fails to take into account the owner's relationship to the animal. |
Case | |
| Colombia - Animal control - LEY 1801 DE 2016, National Code of Police and Coexistence | LEY 1801 DE 2016 | This is the National Code of Police and coexistence. Under Title XIII entitled, “Of the Relationship with Animals," this law regulates concerns to the relationship of humans and domestic animals, the responsibilities that owners have towards their pets, and the responsibilities pet owners have towards society. It regulates topics such as domestic animals in public places and public transportation; the creation of animal welfare centers in districts and municipalities to provide attention to abandoned animals; behaviors that pet owners must avoid to not disrupt the healthy and peaceful coexistence of the members of society; and the general provisions regarding the treatment of potentially dangerous dogs. | Statute | |
| MO - Exotic - Chapter 578. Miscellaneous Offenses. Large Carnivores | V.A.M.S. 578.600 - 578.625 | MO ST 578.600 - 578.625 | The “Large Carnivore Act” pertains to large cats and bears that are nonnative to Missouri and held in captivity. The Act prohibits ownership, possession, breeding, and transportation of large carnivores (with exceptions). The Act creates civil and criminal liability for persons who own or possess a large carnivore. Violations may result in misdemeanor or felony convictions, community service work, the loss of privileges to own or possess any animal, and forfeiture of a large carnivore. | Statute |
| McConnell v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co. | 530 P.2d 127 (Okl. 1974) | 1974 OK 156 (1974) |
In this Oklahoma case, defendant gas company left the plaintiff's yard gate open through which the plaintiff's dog escaped and was then hit by a car. In finding that the gate being left open was the proximate cause of the injury, the court held that the allegations in plaintiffs' amended petition, stated a cause of action and that the trial court erred in sustaining defendant's general demurrer to the petition. |
Case |
| People v. Olary | 160 N.W.2d 348 (Mich. 1968) | 10 Mich. App. 640 (Mich. 1968) |
Defendant argued that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of cruelty to animals. Specifically, he pointed out that there was no direct testimony with regard to the cause of the injuries to his cows. The court disagreed and held that inattention to the condition of the animals was sufficient to constitute the offense of cruelty to animals. |
Case |